DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
                     DISCHARGE REVIEW
                   DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

 ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD02-01235

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020821, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to “No Fraud.”  The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030522.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character and narrative reason of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  UNCHARACTERIZED/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  Change medical fraud discharge to “no fraud.”  (See B_ S_ letter for explanation)  I was told by recruiters not to disclose any medical information that was more than 2 years old.  I trusted their judgment and should not be penalized for that.  

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Copy of DD Form 214
        Letter from Applicant’s mother dated June 14, 2002
        Letter to Mr. S_ dated February 22, 2002
        Letter from Cdr D. M_ dated October 22, 2001
        Letter from Dr. B. M_ dated August 30, 2001
        15 pages from Applicant’s service and enlisted medical record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:   USMC		None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		010222 - 010506	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  010507		Date of Discharge:  010517

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  00  11
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  79

Highest Rank:  Pvt

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  N/A			Conduct:  N/A

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNCHARACTERIZED/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

010222:	SF93 for enlistment physical reported no history of epilepsy, seizures or 
fainting.

010509:	Medical evaluation by Branch Clinic, MCRD, San Diego, CA.  Applicant diagnosed with epilepsy.  No waiver granted on enlistment physical.  Recommended ELS, EPTE.

010509:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge with uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps - epilepsy.  The factual basis for this recommendation was Applicant disclosed at Moment of Truth a history of epilepsy since age 13.  

010514:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps - epilepsy.

010514:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

011022:	Senior Medical Officer, Branch Clinic, MCRD, San Diego, CA.  Applicant incorrectly diagnosed with epilepsy on 010509.  Applicant had a single seizure within 5 years of enlistment, which is disqualifying for enlistment.

Partial discharge package missing.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 010517 with uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1.  By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service as “uncharacterized” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct which would merit another characterization.  The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than one month in the military to warrant a change of discharge.  With respect to non-service related administrative matters, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) characterization.  The Board’s regulations limit its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  The Applicant was discharged for failure to report his history of seizures on his enlistment physical and subsequent admission while at MCRD San Diego that he had a history of seizures since age 14.  The Applicant’s statements during his Moment of Truth interview constitute fraudulent enlistment.  No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  While he may feel that guidance from his recruiter was a factor that contributed to his actions, the record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Despite the incorrect medical diagnosis made on 010509 for epilepsy, the Applicant’s self-admitted history of seizures disqualifies him for enlistment.  The Applicant’s DD Form 214 makes no reference to epilepsy or that the Applicant was discharged for “medical fraud.”  Relief denied.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until present, paragraph 6204, DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.  The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.af.mil”.   

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023